If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
De Menezes Inquiry- the whitewash begins
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stmThe jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be able to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner has said.
Sir Michael Wright said that having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing was "not justified".
Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station by police officers who mistook him for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.
The jury may now return an open, narrative or lawful killing verdict.
Sir Michael made the ruling as he began his summing up of the case on Tuesday.
He also warned jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to any individuals.
So we are limiting the choices of the jury now and preventing them from even considering the possibility of an innocent man who was shot 7 times on the head for no good reason as having been unlawfully killed?
And no individual can given any criminal or even civil responsibility for the killing either?
What a fucking pathetic and sad joke.
I do hope De Menezes family sue the police for every penny they have.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
It wasnt the coppers on the ground, it was the ones in the office that need to be looked at.
If I'm not mistaken it was the men on the ground who tackled a man then shot him seven times.
What if they hadnt shot him and he had been a suicide bomber, or what if in future the police hold back from taking a shot, because they are nervous of losing their jobs and/or getting it wrong?
BOOM, then the police get in trouble for not taking the shot? Yeah the officers on the ground do the dirty work, but dont for once second think they dont have dreams about what they have had to do.
Maybe I'm misinformed but from everything that I have heard about the story he was wearing a light jacket (not exactly great for hiding a bomb), stopped to purchase a paper, and only ran when a couple of out of uniform officers approached him. And the fact that he was shot 7 times while on the ground shows how out of control these officers were.
Richard Reid hid a bomb in his shoe......
The latest plot to be foiled involved liquids disguised as soft drinks....
Size isn't everything.
As for your other points, as far as the cops on the ground were aware, DeMenzes was a suicide bomber, which is what they were told by their bosses. If anyone gets the sack, it should be the people with pips on their shoulders.
And as for the number of times he was shot, if I was presented with someone I was told was a suicide bomber, I'd want to make sure he was dead. It does seem that a lot of the people doing the criticism will never have to make a judgment call like that, which makes it all the easier for them.
I'm sure if it was you with 7 or 8 bullets being shot into your brain that you'd be saying something different. :chin:
At the end of the day they are the ones on the scene - who can see exactly what he looks like, what he is wearing, what he is carrying, etc It's their fingers which are on the trigger and and their eyes, ears and brains which are on the scene to sum up what they see before them.
In the end it's their decision to kill someone or not.
As for the Jury having their hands tied it seems like a huge waste of time and money if they're not allowed to give a real verdict. Seems like they've fixed the outcome of the case from the very beginning.
I doubt anyone would be saying very much with 7 or 8 bullets in their head
But in instances when the justification for shooting was that the person was wearing a large coat with wires hanging out of it...
Sounds to me like a very sloppily put together excuse made after-the-fact.
I agree, the higher-ups definitely made a mess of things and frankly showed a great deal of incompetence. And I would hope that those responsible lose their jobs and there are revisions to policy and stake-out methods.
The reason why I mention it is because generally in police training (at least in the states) they are taught to fire in 3 round bursts. Seven rounds to the head of a man who was on the ground indicates that they were not acting in accordance with their training.
Fair enough. But that's not to say that there shouldn't be criticism. An innocent man was shot seven times by police, I think that requires a great deal of criticism.
they are trained to keep shooting untill theres no chance of the person detonating the bomb, a half dead bomber can kill as many people as a heathly one.
easy to hide a bomb under if its braces.
They shot him 7 times because they thought he was a suicide bomber. They didn't want him to get up and detonate.
what a stupid thing to say.
Yep - you weren't. I suspect with the possible exception of Mr G (and I hope not) none of you will ever be in the situation where you have to make a split second decision, with the knowledge if he is and you don't shoot you and others are dead and if you're wrong and you do people who are sitting comfortably on their arse will decide what you should have done
I know coroners are such lapdogs of the Government...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7719847.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6168050.stm
Actually no it wasn't. That was media reporting. the justification was they thought he was a suicide bomber
I'd agree.
In most cases - however if that's how they're trained to deal with suicide bombers they're mad. You shoot until they're not dead. (also as anyone who's ever fired in a real life situation knows training and reality are different)
I agree. However, it doesn't actually mean that criticism should be directed at the blokes on thr ground, nor, from the evidence, does it make murder or manslaughter.
I think it's perfectly possible to reach a veredict of unlawful killing and put the blame on the idiots in charge and the idots on the surveillance team rather than those who were given the other to shoot him.
Having said the shooters could perhaps have prevented the killing. According to a witness no attempt was told to talk to De Menezes or give him warning. And frankly, since they had the balls (and balls it required) to walk all the way to the 'target' instead of shooting him from a couple of metres away, and since they managed to actually restrain him and hold his arms, they could have simply had a quick look at him first at that juncture. A potential bomber would have little chance to activate a bomb if he cannot move.
But as I said, the blunt of the blame must lie with the others. It is absolutely unbelievable that nobody, but nobody at all will even receive blame or lose their job- never mind criminal charges.
... So I keep being told. And I would argue that it's an indication that they had lost control to a certain degree. Frankly, the only people who really know are the officers themselves.
So let me get this straight. Without putting words into your mouth, you think that we as people looking at the situation in retrospect have no business determining if these people exercised good judgment?
I think you have a responsibility to remember that you, as the people are quite happy to let the police get on with a difficult job for absolutely no reward, you expect them to be able to make these impossible decisions but are still happy to crucify them all if they make a mistake.
I could never be an armed cop, because I know I'd get bugger all support from the public no matter what I did. If I shoot I get suspended and face losing my job and going to prison, if I don't shoot people may die, i get suspended, and face losing my job.
You might. I imagine they weren't as calm and collected as they were on the range, but then no-one is. You shoot until the target is incapable of detonating the bomb.Remember to fire those 7 shots probably took between 2-3 seconds
Yes - unless you can actually understand the situation and have a vague idea of what it's like in fast moving situations where you have a fear for your life
What this case highlighted was the complete and absolute inability of the Met to keep track of suspects, and they focused on the wrong person based on virtually no real evidence.
Never mind he was allowed to board not one but two buses. In the tube carriage one copper stood at the door, pointed his finger and shouted "there he is!", and two others entered the carriage from another door and walked towards him. De Menezes in fact had plenty of time to get up and start walking towards them. Had he been a suicide bomber he would have known his game was up well in advance of the agents reaching him and grabbing him, and would have blown everyone around to pieces.
Whichever way you look at it, it was an extremely piss-poorly executed operation by all concerned. That nobody will even face disciplinary or civil action can only be described as a fucking disgrace.
That is a particularly unfair accusation. I personally believe in giving police and especially soldiers the benefit of the doubt. And in most situations I think people will find that the police and most especially soldiers are completely justified in their actions. But in situations like this, questions need to be asked.
So then why are there review boards?
To claim that the public should not have an opinion about whether their law-enforcement is using deadly force appropriately is absolutely ridiculous.
Are the public sitting on them or are they being staffed by professionals who might have an idea what they're talking about, rather than getting their views on what it's like in these situations from watching 'Where Eagles Dare'
You can have views of course... but if they're misinformed and ludicrous ones don't expect me to go along with them.
that's why the jury's are given time, and expert information, to make an informed decision...
Only if there is a realistic chance of a prosecution...
there's an enquiry going on, the jury has been told what they can say, which kind of destroys the point...
It depends, review boards often have a combination of professionals, elected officials people in civil offices.
There's already actually been a trial which found no individual to blame, they were done for organisational failings not individual.